On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 04:01:12AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0300, amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Detected the following incorrect implementation of the send command: > > polling on the TPM_STS.stsValid field followed by checking the > > TPM_STS.expect field only once. Since TPM_STS.stsValid represents the > > TPM_STS.expect validity, both fields should be polled at the same time. > > > > This fix modifies the signature of wait_for_tpm_stat(), adding an > > additional "mask_result" parameter to its call. wait_for_tpm_stat() is now > > polling the TPM_STS with a mask and waits for the value in mask_result. > > The fix adds the ability to check if certain TPM_STS bits have been > > cleared. > > > > This change is also aligned to verifying the CRC on I2C TPM. The CRC > > verification should be done after the TPM_STS.expect field is cleared > > (TPM received all expected command bytes and set the calculated CRC value > > in the register). > > > > In addition, the send command was changed to comply with > > TCG_DesignPrinciples_TPM2p0Driver_vp24_pubrev.pdf as follows: > > - send all command bytes in one loop > > - remove special handling of the last byte > > > > Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> > > Just wondering how did you come up with that name since you are not > masking anything with 'mask_result'? Maybe just rename it as 'stat'? That would make the whole thing a lot less confusing looking I think. /Jarkko
